APCOA Appeal, ticket paid but not displayed!

the.bach

Hi, eveything here is really useful, but I'm a little confused. I've read the "sticky" newbie guide and just have a few questions that I hope are not too stupid.

I was rather stressed when getting a train the other day and so forgot to stick the parking ticket purchased from the ticket office on the car. Doh! Came back to a PCN on the windscreen.

This says if I appeal in 14 days - by this Friday (25th), I will still be able to pay the reduced charge so am thinking of doing this instead of waiting for a letter.

I was going to use the "THE FIRST APPEAL TO THE PPC" letter from the "Newbies" sticky thread and send it by snail mail - the APCOA website says they don't accept online appeals.

Or should I use the "PrivateMitigating.rtf" which seems a bit friendlier? )


My questions:

1. Is this the right thing to do?
2. Do I need to add anything about financial difficulties or expalin my mitigating circumstances any further?
3. Should I add a point 4) stating the driver purchased a ticket and enclose a scan of said ticket?

Thanks for your help.

nigelbb

Go back & read the Newbies sticky as you have not understood several points. The discount charge offer if paid within 14 days is just a ruse to get you panicked & to pay up. There are good reasons to wait for the Notice To Keeper (unless this is a lease or hire car) which are explained.

the.bach

Ah! Thanks.

OK I followed the wrong arrow on the flowchart...

I wasn't going to pay - just submit the appeal early in case I couldn't win.

So I just wait for a "notice" to come through the post, then appeal to APCOA?

I was just worried that my situation - mitigating circumstances and financial hardship - would not be accepted by POPLA if the APCOA reject the appeal.

bod1467

Which means you STILL haven't read and understood most of the NEWBIES thread. POPLA appeals are NEVER made using mitigating circumstances.

nigelbb

the.bach wrote: »

I was just worried that my situation - mitigating circumstances and financial hardship - would not be accepted by POPLA if the APCOA reject the appeal.

You really do need to go back & re-read everything. You don not appeal on grounds of mitigating circumstances and financial hardship as that is bound to fail. You do not appeal on anything about what happened on the day or the circumstances. You appeal on the points of law that go to the heart of the PPC fraud that is that no private company can 'fine' you. If you entered into a contract for parking then any liquidated damages for breaching that contract must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL) & cannot be a penalty. You paid in full & can prove it so APCOA's loss is zero.

the.bach

Thank you again - sorry for being thick but this is a lot to take in and I don't usually do confrontation. I would usually just fold and pay, but I really can't afford it.

So I wait - If I get a letter I wil re-read (very carefully) the next step and challange using the grounds you mention.

I hope that's right - sorry again for being dim.

Coupon-mad

It is not about just reading the flowchart - that's the 'easy on the eye' pictorial link for starters - to encourage lazy people to see how easy it is and not to give up. If you then actually hop back off the pretty pictures in the flowchart and read the NEWBIES thread I give you the appeal to copy & paste in its entirety, it can't get any easier than a template can it? You just 'should' normally be patient and wait for the NTK, but, if you are desperate then send the template appeal now (same template, send it early). It won't hurt and you are obviously itching to do summat! DO NOT CHANGE IT. DO NOT WRITE YOUR OWN OR ADD STUFF ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.

I wasn't going to pay - just submit the appeal early in case I couldn't win.

What do you mean in case you couldn't win? Against APCOA?!!! We always win 100% of POPLA appeals and you CANNOT 'protect' the stupid fake discount! You appeal, you win, you pay nothing, for the love of God please forget the 'discount' offer because you WILL WIN.

the.bach

Thanks for your help and advice (and patience!)

I've waited - I now understand why - NTK arrived on day 53!!

Have sent appeal, by Special Delivery, exactly as worded in the sticky.

Now I wait again. I'll let you know what happens.

PS. I think the sticky thread may have been updated from the last time I was here - it seems much easier to understand now. Or maybe I'm just less panicked!! Thanks again anyway.

Dee140157

I think you just understand it more now as the concepts sink in.
However there have been updates too, as it is always a working document tended lovingly by Coupon-Mad.

the.bach

So APCOA rejected my appeal!

Thanks for everything so far. Below is my draft of my POPLA appeal. I know it's really short notice but if anyone more familar with the ins and outs of this would be willing and able to give it the once-over, I'd be very grateful.

Particularly, I'm unsure of the bit about the crossing closing... I'm just really annoyed that I bought a ticket and genuinely did not realise it needed to be on the car. Obvious in hindsight, I know...

I still have the ticket, which I intend to attach to my online appeal.

APOCA sent a letter from First Capital Connect as "Confirmation of our formal authorisations for APCOA ..." - I assume section 3 of my appeal still stands as this is not the actual contract?

When I checked my POPLA number it said:
"This code was generated 31 day(s) before the date of your appealrejection letter. This means that you have not been given the full 28 days toappeal that you are entitled to under the British Parking Association's Code ofPractice. Please consider making a complaint."
I don't know if this makes a difference - sorry.


Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:


1) Lack of signage – No contract withthe driver
The signs, and therefore the specific parking regulations, are not obviousgiven the context of this railway car park. They cannot be read from the car onentering the car park. They are also not face-on when walking from the west carpark to the ticket office and thus easy to miss. This is compounded by the factthat the pedestrian crossing between the west car park and the ticket office(and south-bound trains) closes for an extended period before south-bound traindepartures due to the slightly earlier north-bound train. This places membersof the public under an increased level of pressure to arrive early to catch thesouth-bound train. Many people have been stranded on the wrong side of thetracks, in plenty of time for their train, but caught by the early crossingclosure. This added pressure means stopping to read extended terms andconditions is not always a priority.

A parking ticket (enclosed xxx) was purchased by the driver from the ticketoffice (where there is no signage), at no time was the driver informed by the issuingrailway employee that the ticket needed to be on the vehicle in question.


A Notice is notimported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign;there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between theparties.

The signage also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders itunable to form a contract with a driver: ''Signs should be readable and understandableat all times''.



2) The charge is not a genuinepre-estimate of loss

A ticket was purchased;therefore there is no loss of any amount. See enclosed xxx.

This Operatorcannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be anestimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to bepotentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by thepresence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue fromfailure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss isfundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing theparking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver'salleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs andtax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possiblyflow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have beenin the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and wouldhave had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached anyterms at all.


3) Lack of standing / authority fromlandowner

APCOA has no title in this land and no BPAcompliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in thecourts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording.I put APCOA to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner(not a lessee or agent). APCOA no legal status to enforce this charge because there is noassignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name norstanding to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this carpark and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket'vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been suppliedlawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated(unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is notcompliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and doesnot allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this allegedcontravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not besufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witnessstatement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions,charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may wellbe signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply withparagraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking companymust have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is noauthority.



4) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within themeaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' underSchedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registeredkeeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I askthe Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point andwould require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Railauthorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws.


5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding)pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT onUTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:

'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent asto what must be paid and in what circumstances.

A lack of signage detailing that parking tickets purchased from the railwayticket office need to be displayed on the vehicle is far from ‘
specific’ or 'transparent'. Particularly when tickets purchase by phone do nothave to be displayed.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) listof terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e)"Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who failsto fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which hasnot been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary tothe requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in theparties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment ofthe consumer".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant tosection 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "Aperson cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify anotherperson (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability thatmay be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in sofar as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge isdismissed.

Yours faithfully,

Dee140157

Are you sure you put the right date into the POPLA code checker? 31 days is a long time in advance to issue a POPLA code. It's usually 2-3days they muck it up by.

When did you receive rejection, what date of rejection is on letter?